Welcome to the investigative reporting blog of award-winning journalist Alex Roslin, author of the book Police Wife: The Secret Epidemic of Police Domestic Violence. Roslin was president of the board of the Canadian Centre for Investigative Reporting, and his awards include the Arlene Book Award of the American Society of Journalists and Authors, for the book Police Wife. Below are samples of his work.

Since many cloned farm animals are born with abnormalities, how safe is their meat and milk?

When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced in January that
food from cloned farm animals was safe to eat, the agency said the science was
clear. Officials said meat and milk from cloned cows, pigs, and goats are
exactly the same as conventional food.

“The food in every respect is indistinguishable from food from any other
animal so it is beyond our imagination to even find a theory that would cause
the food to be unsafe,” Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, told reporters at a news conference in Washington,D.C.

In her office outside Paris, one of the world’s leading cloning
researchers, Pascale Chavatte-Palmer, didn’t think the research was clear at
all. Working out of the French government’s National Institute for Agricultural
Research, she helps supervise one of only two or three noncorporate research
facilities worldwide studying the long-term health of—and food products
from—large numbers of cloned animals.

Chavatte-Palmer, a group research leader at the INRA, has found milk and
meat from cloned cows are, indeed, different. “The full maturation of muscle is
delayed in clones,” she said over the phone from her office 25 kilometres
southwest of Paris. “This probably will affect the quality [of the meat].
It will certainly be a bit different.”

And those aren’t the only differences she’s found between clones and
normal animals. In a series of papers she has coauthored in leading scientific
journals, Chavatte-Palmer has reported that clones of cows reached puberty 62
days later, on average, than normal animals and they were 56 kilograms heavier
when they did so. And then there were the huge numbers of clones that didn’t
make it that far.

At an INRA farm whose exact location Chavatte-Palmer can’t disclose for
security reasons, she has helped produce some of the world’s most comprehensive
research on what happens when we try to clone farm animals. Her studies are
cited 54 times in the FDA’s mammoth 968-page risk assessment on food from
clones.

The idea of cloning is to create a perfect genetic copy of an adult
animal by taking the nucleus from one of its cells and transferring it into an
egg that has no nucleus. In about 100 of 1,000 cases, the egg develops into an
embryo that can then be implanted in a surrogate mother.

Of those 100 embryo transfers, the INRA research found more than 50
fetuses spontaneously abort in the first trimester of pregnancy because of
genetic or physical anomalies or defects in the placenta—a rate two times
higher than for conventionally bred cows.

Another 20 or so abort later in pregnancy, most often because of a
grotesque ailment sometimes called large offspring syndrome, which results in a
fetus 20 to 85 percent larger than average.

In the end, fewer than five of the fetuses, on average, are born alive,
Chavatte-Palmer reported in a 2004 paper in the journal Cloning and Stem Cells.
This finding is in line with a European Food Safety Authority draft scientific
opinion on cloning released in December 2007 that said the success rate for
clone fetuses reaching term is 0.5 percent to five percent.

The FDA risk assessment offers a similarly glum, if a tad less dismal,
cloning success rate of five percent to 18 percent.

But making it into the world alive is just the beginning of the struggle
for many clones. Many are born with limb and head deformities, contracted
tendons, extreme diarrhea, diabetes, respiratory failure, heart disease, and
kidney problems.

Contrary to the sunny views of FDA officials at the Washington news
conference, the agency’s risk assessment makes for sombre reading about the
unpredictable science of cloning. It cites one 2000 Japanese study that painted
an especially unsettling picture: “Calves [numbered] 11, 13-15, 20 and 22 died
at parturition [birth] or several days later and had significant morphological
abnormalities of the kidney or cacomelia [limb deformity]; the neck was bent
backwards, the hind legs were stretched tightly or the second joints were bent
toward the opposite direction from the normal position…

“Calf number 12 was disemboweled at parturition and the face of calf 16
was warped and the second joints of both hind legs were bent in the opposite
direction from the normal position.”

This study, published in the Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, also
reported on the bizarre appearance of many clone calves at birth, which “had an
‘adult’ appearance” and displayed “many wrinkles in the skin, thick bone
structure, and rough hairs resembling those of adult males”.

Some of these postnatal complications are, again, caused by large
offspring syndrome, which occurs in 14 percent to 50 percent of successful
clone births, compared to 9.5 percent of animals produced by in vitro
fertilization.

As for older clones, virtually no research on their health and longevity
has been done, even though it’s been 12 years since Dolly the sheep—the first
mammal cloned from an adult cell—was born in 1996. Dolly herself had to be
euthanized at the young age of six after developing arthritis and lung disease.

The FDA is quite frank about most of these problems in its risk
assessment. “Many questions have been raised regarding the immune function of
clones and their ability to resist or recover from disease, yet few studies
have examined this issue directly in bovine clones,” it says.

So how can the FDA still okay food from clones? The reasoning goes like
this: yes, almost all cloning attempts fail, and, yes, there is evidence the
animals that do survive are genetically abnormal. But the FDA says it hasn’t
been shown that such genetic abnormalities make food from clones unsafe. “The
relevance of ‘epigenetic normality’ to food consumption risks is unclear,” its
report notes.

So the FDA concludes that as long as clones are pronounced to be
physically healthy by a food inspector, their meat and milk are safe to eat.

The logic baffles Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst at the Washington,
D.C.–based Center for Food Safety. “They have no data. The standard way to
assess something like this is to do long-term studies of feeding it
[cloned-animal products] to animals,” he said, speaking on the phone from his
office.

“The [FDA’s] basic assumption is if an animal can walk in the door of a
slaughterhouse, it’s safe to eat. I don’t know what slaughterhouses they
visited. There are tremendous problems in slaughterhouses about whether we’re
packaging meat we shouldn’t.”

But beyond that, it’s still an open question whether or not any clones
are really healthy. The FDA acknowledges as much. Its report cites a 2004 paper
in the New England Journal of Medicine by cloning pioneer Rudolf Jaenisch, the
MIT biologist who created the first genetically engineered animals in the
1970s.

He wrote: “Gene-expression analyses indicate that four to five percent
of the overall genome and 30 to 50 percent of imprinted genes are not correctly
expressed in tissues of newborn cloned mice. These data represent strong
molecular evidence that cloned animals, even if they survive to birth, have
serious gene-expression abnormalities.”

In France, Chavatte-Palmer concluded in a paper last year in the journal
Animal: “Cloned animals, although apparently normal, are however significantly
different from contemporary controls maintained in the same conditions.”

It also turns out there’s no solid evidence for saying the
meat and milk of clones really are the same as those from conventionally bred
animals. No large-scale studies have been done. “Information on the composition
of meat or milk from animal clones has been limited,” the FDA’s report says.

The agency explored the idea of sending some clone food for lab tests
but dropped the plan because, apparently, it didn’t have access to enough
sample material for a statistically valid result.

Instead, the FDA relied on several small-scale studies of meat and milk
composition involving an average of five clones each. Five of the 10 studies
found differences between food from clones and conventionally bred animals.

One study coauthored by Chavatte-Palmer last year in the journal
Theriogenology reported statistically significant differences in vital fatty
acids and enzymes in milk from clones compared to conventional animals.

Of five studies of cow meat, two—including Chavatte-Palmer’s
Theriogenology paper—found significant differences in fat content, proteins,
fatty acids, and enzymes between beef from clones and that from conventionally
bred cows. For pork, only two studies were cited involving five clones in
total, both from biotech company ViaGen. They found the clones had less
back-fat thickness and meat yield than control animals, plus their meat was
darker and redder.

No studies have been done at all on food from goats, the third clone
species that the FDA okayed for food production.

Apart from these 10 studies, the FDA cited three others that also showed
differences in clone meat or milk, but the reason may have been the varying
diet of the animals.

These less-than-stellar results went unmentioned when U.S. officials
spoke to reporters in January about the decision to okay clone food. “These
products are not different than food from traditionally bred animals,” said
Bruce Knight, the agriculture department’s undersecretary for marketing and
regulatory programs, at the news conference. He described cloning as just
“another breeding technique” that “has now been demonstrated to be safe”.

Chavatte-Palmer thinks more study is still needed. She’s no anti-biotech
advocate, and she personally believes that meat and milk from clones are
probably safe to eat. But she added: “I think we should know more. Our study is
one of the biggest published, but it’s still limited. There is not enough data
to indicate there will be no problem. We feel there is a rush to accept those
clones.”

Food from cloned animals could officially enter the U.S. food
supply starting as soon as a few months. The short delay is because of a
temporary voluntary moratorium suggested to the industry by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture—time to work out a plan to assuage the concerns of consumers in
the U.S. and abroad.

The moratorium would be extended at least another year by a farm bill
that the U.S. Senate passed in December requiring an outside study by the
National Academy of Sciences of the safety of food from clones and impacts on
human health. That bill is now the subject of negotiations with the House to
reconcile different versions.

If the moratorium is lifted, clone food seems likely to slip largely
unnoticed into American grocery stores without much possibility of being
tracked. That’s thanks in part to the FDA’s decision not to require labels on
the food or any tracking mechanism for cloned animals and their offspring.

There’s also a practical reason the food will be virtually impossible to
track: there’s no way to test whether an animal is cloned or had a clone
ancestor. “The answer is no,” said the FDA’s Sundlof when a reporter at the
January news conference asked if such a test is possible. “These animals are
indistinguishable; both the animal and any food produced from those animals is
absolutely indistinguishable from any other food source.”

And despite the voluntary moratorium, food from clones has already been
entering the U.S. marketplace for about 20 years, according to Donald
Coover, a Galesburg, Kansas, veterinarian and owner of SEK Genetics,
which retails cow semen to farmers. Coover said he himself has sold U.S. ranchers
several dozen clone offspring as well as “thousands of units of semen” from
clones. He put the number of other U.S. cloning businesses flouting
the ban at “dozens at least, hundreds probably”.

“It’s not illegal and it’s not unethical,” said Coover, reached on his
cellphone at the Iowa Beef Expo. “Instead of having just another damn horse,
you have Secretariat every time. That is why it’s enormously useful.”

Coover said food from clones first entered American diets in the 1980s
and early 1990s from an initial generation of clones made with split embryos.
This was long before Dolly, who was cloned from an adult cell. The earlier
clones didn’t catch on with ranchers because it was a crapshoot trying to
predict if an embryo would turn into a superior animal as an adult.

Nonetheless, Coover said hundreds of split-embryo clones were produced,
and their meat and milk quietly entered the U.S. food supply without
any formal assessment of the products’ safety. “I’m not aware of any
large-scale studies,” said Coover. “It just was not considered as a health or
nutrition issue by the FDA.”

Coover said it’s very possible some offspring of split-embryo clones
also entered Canada’s food supply. “I would be stunned [if that wasn’t the
case]. I can tell you for certain there was nobody up there looking at this.”

In Canada, food from both adult and split-embryo clones is banned
by order of Health Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which
enforces the ban and monitors food imports, didn’t respond to a request for
comment on Coover’s claim or how it plans to stop clones from entering the
country.

Health Canada is now studying the FDA risk assessment as part
of a reevaluation of the Canadian policy on food from clones.

For all the attention on food from clones, the fact is you’ll
never see a clone T-bone at your butcher. That’s because clones are up to 10
times more expensive to produce than conventional animals—$10,000 to $16,000
for a cow and $6,000 for a pig. Instead, most clone food in our diets would not
come directly from clones themselves.

Remember all those abnormal clones that are euthanized or die
prematurely? You didn’t think they’d go to waste, did you? The FDA says their
meat is unsafe to eat. However, its risk assessment says an acceptable disposal
method would be to send the carcasses to rendering plants, where they would get
chopped up and cooked with spoiled meat from grocery stores, dead animals from
zoos and shelters and butcher-shop trimmings, then turned into pet food and
human food products like lard.

The FDA cites no research on whether or not rendered food from abnormal
clones is safe. “There is not a single study of that,” says Jaydee Hanson, of
the Center for Food Safety. “They don’t let animals with mad-cow disease enter
the food supply through rendering.”

The other big source of clone-
derived food would be the naturally bred offspring of clones. “Everything in
those tissues is the same as what you’re seeing with our natural conceived
animals,” Bernadette Dunham, director of the FDA Center for
Veterinary Medicine, told reporters in January.

But again, the FDA acknowledges in its assessment that the science is
limited on the health of clone offspring or the composition of their meat and
milk. The FDA risk assessment cites only two studies on pork from the offspring
of pig clones—one of them from biotech company ViaGen. They found the clone
offspring had less fatty acids, shorter back and loin lengths, and less bacon
yield. No studies at all were cited on beef or milk from the offspring of
clones. A few studies have found clone progeny tend to be born with fewer
abnormalities than their parents, but there is little longer-term research on
offspring as they age.

Nonetheless, the FDA concludes that any genetic errors in clones are
likely “reset” in their offspring. Because of the lack of research on offspring
of livestock clones, the agency cites evidence from the so-called mouse model:
research on mice that suggests offspring of clones benefit from some kind of
genetic reset button.

“We don’t have enough data to say that is 100-percent true,”
Chavatte-Palmer said. “The mouse model has been shown not to be a good model
for humans. I don’t see why it would be a good model for cows. The best model
for cows would be cows.”

One of the few scientists who has looked into the health of clone
offspring is Dean Betts, an associate professor of biomedical sciences at the University of Guelph in Ontario.
Betts coauthored a pair of studies in the journal Molecular Reproduction and
Development in 2005 and 2007 that found sheep and goat clones and their
offspring have significantly shorter telomeres, the chromosome endings believed
to control aging and susceptibility to cancer.

“It [the telomere] provides chromosomal stability. Without it, you have
a greater chance of genomic instability, which leads to cancer,” Betts said in
an interview from his office at the university.

Shorter telomere lengths could explain why many clones seem to age
faster than normal animals. Dolly the sheep, for one, was found to have shorter
telomeres. “Do they [the offspring of clones] have a possibility of shorter
life spans and age-related diseases?” Betts asked. “We don’t know what it means
or if it has health impacts. I would say not enough study has been done…There
could be some impacts on the species itself over generations.”

Asked if he agrees with the FDA’s assertion that genetic errors are
probably reset in the offspring of clones, Betts said: “Based on my study, I
wouldn’t support that statement. My study would say the opposite, that they are
not reset.”

Back in France, Chavatte-Palmer had high hopes she could get some
answers about the health, longevity, and food of clones and their offspring.
But her cloning work has ground virtually to a halt. She said grant-funding
agencies have turned down most of INRA’s proposals to study the facility’s 70
clones and offspring—one of only two or three such large groups of animals at a
noncorporate facility anywhere in the world.

Now money has run out to maintain a group of normal animals in similar
conditions as the clones—necessary in order to have a good comparison sample,
Chavatte-Palmer said.

“We have piles of data that we haven’t had time and money to get help to
analyze…It’s very difficult to get funding in this area of research. Europe doesn’t
want to hear about it, even though we are told it [clone food] is safe. It’s
frustrating, very frustrating. I’m thinking at some point it’s best to move on
to something else.”

Winner of the Arlene Book Award of the American Society of Journalists and Authors

Click the image to buy "Police Wife" on Amazon

About Alex Roslin

Alex Roslin is an award-winning journalist who was president of the board of the Canadian Centre for Investigative Reporting. He won the American Society of Journalists and Authors' Arlene Book Award for Writing that Makes a Difference for the first edition of the book "Police Wife: The Secret Epidemic of Domestic Violence," which he co-authored.

The book was also the runner-up for the Hollywood Book Festival non-fiction book award, won silver in the eLit Book Awards and bronze in the INDIEFAB Book of the Year Awards and was a finalist in the Next Generation Indie Book Awards. Roslin is the author of the updated and revised second edition of "Police Wife."

Roslin has also won three Canadian Association of Journalists prizes for investigative reporting and 10 nominations for CAJ awards and National Magazine Awards, including one for his story "Killer Cop" about RCMP Constable Jocelyn Hotte's murder of his ex-girlfriend Lucie Gélinas.

He has worked as an associate producer for the CBC-TV investigative programs the fifth estate and Disclosure and has written for The Montreal Gazette, The Financial Post, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, Maclean's, L'Actualité, The Georgia Straight, Zoomer, Canadian Geographic, Today's Parent and many others.

He is chair of the nominations and awards committee of the Professional Writers Association of Canada.